We “forgot” about it because climate-as-energy-policy was a lever for control because energy touches everything. Now that AI will touch everything, AI is the focus of those who seek control over others.
There has never been an energy transition that wasn’t driven by economics. From wood to whale oil to coal to petroleum. If you care about climate and not control over others, that is the place to focus.
Everyone else on the planet is doing just fine our policymakers are just pretending like climate change isn't real. We could be investing in and subsidizing proven methods like mass transit, renewable energy, &c. Nobody has to be coerced for this to happen. Unless like getting less subsidies because fossil fuels need to get their externalities priced in is coercion lmao
The guys on the Iranian warship also knew they were on a warship. I mean come on. What’s the expectation here. This isn’t tag on a kindergarten playground. People are gonna die.
The taxi-driving Alz patients may overwhelmingly die of something that leads to physicians not listing Alz as a cause of death. If taxi driving is loaded in such a way that Alz presents significant challenges (eg loss of income), that could be the case.
One easy way to confirm this is to look at the impact of GPS on this + whether London taxi drivers get less frequent Alzheimer’s than other cities/countries that don’t have the same requirements and complexities.
Sort of, but you need to separate the model from the interface. The base models pretty much think they’re you, and the chat stuff is bolted on top. It’s kind of a round peg square hole thing, or i.o.w. the whole may be less than the sum of the parts.
Longer term I dunno if statistics or “fits the shape of what a response might look like” is the right way of thinking about it either because what’s actually happening might change from under you. It’s possible given enough parameters anything humans care about is separable. The process of discovering those numbers and the numbers themselves are different.
I doubt that 5 billion people could watch the Olympics at all.
Where I am from, there is so little interest in the Olympics that I doubt even half my countries' population would be interested. I have never watched the Olympics ever, and amongst my family and friends, there is little to no mention of it. It is a minor cultural phenomena. This seems to me like there were large extrapolations made.
During the last few decades, for various reasons the interest in several kinds of sports events, including the Olympics, has become much lower than before. Other forms of entertainment that were popular in the past have been similarly affected.
However, when I was a child, a half of century ago, the Olympics was not a minor cultural phenomena, but a really major event in which the majority of the people all over the world would be interested.
How do you even measure that at that scale? I'm sure I would be counted among that 5 billion, yet my "following" was searching medal counts every couple days to see how poorly my country was doing, yet I would never describe it as "important" to me in any way.
I sincerely doubt more than half the population of the entire planet showed more than a passing interest in them, and I'm still curious how it'd be possible to measure that.
I looked at the bug report. You don’t use the packet filter, but expect packet filtering? Seems to be a misunderstanding. The flow filter needs a flow to filter, which requires a TCP handshake to establish.
reply